![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I was looking over the article.
During the first half of 2012, the problem was mainly that the article was inaccessible, poorly explained, and missed large chunks of central info. To fix it, a couple of overview and "simple explanation" sections were added. We still need some of these, but we've brought this topic quite a long way. The basic concepts are now much better explained (for this level of project) and also more exact and comprehensive. Now that we have figured (roughly) how to explain the topic, I think we could shortly re-condense and refactor, in order to reduce duplication that was once needed, and also to address incidents where the article contains multiple explanations of essentially the same background. We now know how to appropriately explain the Higgs boson, field and mechanism, so it doesn't need saying twice nearly as much.
I am not suggesting we do this "now" or "yet" but I am thinking we should do it at some point, and interested in feedback if people think it's possible. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Physicists, of course, won't even notice the unintended reading.
— MaxEnt 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The current lead of the article is too long. (see WP:LEADLENGTH) It needs to be condensed to 4 paragraphs at most. T R 15:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that the HB "History" section is more like a "History of the Standard Model". Not a surprise, as the history of the Higgs boson (and electroweak theory, Higgs mechanism etc) to a great extent is the history of the Standard Model or greatly overlaps it.
To fix this, much like the "search" section, a lot of this ought to be moved off to an article History of the Standard Model and summarized here. We have "history of..." articles for many aspects of physics but not for the SM itself. If we had such an article then this section could be (rightly) cut down a lot.
I've made a start at working on such an article here if interested and would like to ask for your help to keep an eye on it and suggest when it's at least capable of going mainspace. That way we can cut down the HB article history and link to that (new) article for the detail which would be good.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
During the 1950s theoreticians had struggled because while gauge field theories seemed desirable and worked in other areas, when theories such as Yang-Mills were applied to a possible electroweak force and its symmetries, they failed, because they predicted particles and forces that clearly didn't exist. This was a result of Goldstone's theorem, which seemed to demand such particles would be created if symmetry was broken. The theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking (Nambu, 1960), and the subsequent suggestion that the previous theoretical problems could perhaps be resolved this way if another field with an unusual but not impossible structure was involved (Anderson, 1962), led to three independent near-simultaneous papers in 1964 which together outlined a fully relevatistic theory for such a field, authored by Englert and Brout in August 1964, Higgs in October 1964, and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble ("GHK"). A formal description for the electroweak theory based on spontaneous symmetry breaking within a gauge-invariant quantum field emerged shortly after in 1967, when Weinberg and Salam independently applied these ideas to Glashow's incomplete electroweak interaction theory. Despite this progress, most of these proposals received relatively little attention at publication, quantum field theory being seen in the 1960s as a dead end; however the final piece of the puzzle, the proof of renormalization by 't Hooft and Veltman (1971), and promotion by Benjamin Lee, led to its widespread acceptance and retrospective recognition of many of the works involved as meriting Nobel prizes or other prestigious awards. |
A few days ago, the editor Cjean42 included in this article (and in other related articles) a diagram that I subsequently deleted as I found it very unclear and bordering on WP:OR. A (civil ;-) discussion on Cjean42's talk page ensued:
Text pasted from Cjean42's talk page |
---|
Hey Cjean42, I noticed that you have been attaching what appear to be self-produced diagrams all over the particle physics articles.
Now, one problem with those diagrams is that they are very unclear (and I write this with a certain knowledge of the subject - check my contributions to convince yourself). Look e.g., at the diagram that you posted in the Higgs article: what is on the axes? what do the different colors and different symbols represent? All of those things may have a meaning for you, but they are meaningless to the reader. Another (perhaps bigger) problem is that your diagrams appear to reflect your personal interpretation of the concepts depicted, and they do not resemble very much any standard diagram in the scientific literature (please correct me if I'm wrong). In other words, those diagrams amount to original research, and as such they do not belong in a Wikipedia article (check the guidelines to convince yourself). Unless you can show that your diagrams do in fact reflect the standard of the scientific literature, I will remove them from the particle physics articles. I hope you take this the right way, i.e. not as a personal attack against you but rather as an attempt to ensure the clarity of the articles and the respect of the guidelines of Wikipedia. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 12:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Now I feel that the discussion has reached a point where it would benefit from the input of other editors. TR, FT2, anybody else who's interested, could you please have a look at it? What do you think about the disputed diagram? Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made an updated diagram that might be more clear. It's a plot of the weak hypercharge, Y, and weak isospin, W, of the Standard Model and Higgs field states, showing how the neutral Higgs (circled) determines electric charge, Q, at the weak mixing angle. One can also see in the plot, via charge conservation, how the neutral Higgs interacts, mixing the left and right fermion states to give them mass. This is a pretty minimal version of the plot. If you think it would be better, we could label the particle states, such as with eL and eR near the electron states, etc. Or we could add charges along any axis, such as 1/3, 2/3, 1 near the Q tics. Or add W and Y tics. But the more is added, the busier the plot gets, which is why I've used colors and shapes instead of labels. Or it might be better not to use these plots at all. Up to you -- they are a gift to Wikipedia. Cjean42 ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that Cjean42 has included in the article an updated version of his/her diagram. I think that: 1) this diagram would still look very obscure to the average reader; 2) it is not really necessary to provide the SU(2) and U(1) charges of the SM fermions in this article (moreover, there are no values on the axes, so the info is not even given in full); 3) the sentences in the caption "The four components of the Higgs field (squares) break the electroweak symmetry and interact with other particles to give them mass, with three components becoming part of the massive W and Z bosons. Allowed decays of the neutral Higgs boson, H, (circled) satisfy electroweak charge conservation." have very little relation with the actual diagram (I mean, where do you see that the Higgs breaks the EW symmetry and gives mass to the other particles?).
For these reasons, I would still remove the diagram from the Higgs boson article. Perhaps an amended version of the diagram could still go in the Weinberg angle article, after all it does show that weak isospin and hypercharge combine into electric charge. But what do the other editors think about it? Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The diagram is useful to readers because it matches the mathematical description in this section using a simple plot. You can see the charges of the four components of the Higgs field, and how these relate to the other particles according to their electroweak charges. These charges nicely summarize what the Higgs field is and how it interacts with other particles, seen in a visual way in this diagram, via charge conservation. To answer Ptrslv72's specific questions: The neutral Higgs, H, breaks the electroweak symmetry by specifying a direction in this diagram, with electric charge perpendicular to this direction. This same field, H, links the left and right handed fermion components, as can be seen by vector addition in the diagram, matching the mathematical description in this section. (For example, add H to uL to get uR.) You can also see the decays allowed by charge conservation, such as H -> uR + anti-uR. The information in this section is presented nicely for a reader in this charge diagram. I do think it's now less confusing, thanks to your previous input. I hope you agree and decide to keep it here. Cjean42 ( talk) 01:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The choice of symbols is a bit fanciful, but I can see how this electroweak charge plot would be useful to readers. If nothing else, it shows the Higgs boson as one of four components of the Higgs field. And, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but it did instantly remind me that the weak hypercharge of the Higgs field is 1, and not 1/2 as was here previously. - Dilaton ( talk) 12:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I merged in the article Higgs field and redirected. rationale is on that article's talk page:
from that page...
|
---|
The article on the Higgs boson has been improved over the last few months, and is now a better quality description, including at lay-level, while this article seems poor quality with quite a bit of speculative WP:OR. It doesn't need a separate "less technical" article now (or if it does then it is easy to modify that page for the purpose), which was part of the original motive for this page. Also it's dubious whether a separate page is needed for a field and its quantum, given that this is a case where both are still strictly speaking, hypothetical. Finally unlike longer known fields and their quanta, where we may have a lot more to say on both, there's little we can say about either of Higgs field or Higgs boson, that doesn't apply to the other, so there's a lot of redundancy. On the basis any valuable sourced or useful content is retained, I'd like to merge these pages. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The sole useful content from that page - and even this would need checking for sources, balance and WP:OR - is best described as "Other speculation and discussion related to the Higgs field" - which is legitimate since it has evoked speculation both within the physics community and science writers, and elsewhere. The content that might be salvageable is:
possible salvageable content, to review?
|
---|
[T]he Higgs mechanism is often credited with explaining the "origin" or "genesis" of mass. [1] But there is some doubt as to whether the Higgs mechanism provides sufficient insight into the actual nature of mass. As Max Jammer puts it, "if a process 'generates' mass it may reasonably be expected to provide information about the nature of what it 'generates' as well". [2] But in the Higgs mechanism, mass is not "generated" in the particle by a miraculous creatio ex nihilo, it is transferred to the particle from the Higgs field, which contained that mass in the form of energy, and "neither the Higgs mechanism nor its elaborations...contribute to our understanding of the nature of mass". [3] By coupling with this field a massless particle acquires potential energy and, by the mass–energy relation, mass. The stronger the coupling, the more massive the particle. (Dubious value) - The way particles acquire mass through interacting with the Higgs field is analogous to blotting paper absorbing ink. [4] Pieces of blotting paper represent individual particles and the ink represents energy. Different particles "soak up" different amounts of energy, depending on "energy absorbing" ability and the strength of the Higgs field. (Speculation of a wider cosmic role, inflation etc) -
One of the main motivations for postulating the Higgs field comes from the quest to find simple, symmetrical laws of nature. [9] Things fall down, not sideways. It required considerable effort to realize that the three dimensions of space are equivalent. Not until Galileo did people learn to "blame the earth" for hiding the simplicity of the principle of inertia. It was a good idea to formulate the basic laws of physics in empty space. Physicists are now convinced that empty space itself is a complicated environment. They "blame the vacuum" for many complications. Background fields permeate empty space. These fields hide the full simplicity and symmetry of physical laws. Heat up a magnet and it becomes demagnetised. Its electrons do not recognize any special direction in space; the system is perfectly symmetric. But cool it down and the electrons align their spin axes due to forces between their spins. The perfect symmetry between the directions of space is destroyed through spontaneous symmetry breaking. Symmetric forces enforce an asymmetric solution. Physical laws are more symmetric than any stable realization of them. Physicists suspect that a similar effect is responsible for the background Higgs field permeating the universe. The answer to the question "Why isn't our vacuum more empty?" is that emptiness is unstable. who? Just as the electromagnetic field is higher near heavily charged particles, the Higgs field should be higher near heavy particles. For instance, near a Z boson—an object that accelerators should be able to produce in great abundance in the near future—the Higgs field is changed. The Z boson is unstable. When it decays into lighter particles, the disturbance in the Higgs field must take on another form. It might become a travelling disturbance in the Higgs field itself—a packet of energy propagating outward-a Higgs boson. The Higgs particle is to the pervasive mass-generating Higgs field what the photon is to electromagnetic fields. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to be confused |
---|
Higgs mechanism The mechanism that explains why gauge bosons become massive when the corresponding symmetry is spontaneously broken. |
Higgs field The field that break the elektroweak symmetry in the Standard Model. |
Higgs boson The particle excitation of the Higgs field. |
There is currently a lot of duplication between the Background and History sections. In addition the background section still suffers from being unreferenced. I think one we can deal with this, is by merging the Background section into the History section (Possibly renaming it "History and Background"). The current bullet points clarifying the terminology around the Higgs mechanism/field/particle are very useful. However, I think they would work better if they were condensed to 1-2 sentences, and presented as a float. Any thoughts or comments? T R 10:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have drafted a suggestion for a floating table to replace the terminology section on the right. T R 23:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The removed text, some material has been reused or simplified, review if wished
|
---|
While there are several symmetries in nature that are spontaneously broken through a form of the Higgs mechanism, in the context of the Standard Model the term "Higgs mechanism" almost always refers to symmetry breaking of the electroweak field. Electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) itself is considered proven, and believed responsible for the mass of fundamental particles and also the differences between the electromagnetic and weak nuclear interactions which cease to be unified below a very high temperature of about 1015 K. But the exact cause has been exceedingly difficult to prove; the lack of adequate data in this area has also limited the development and testing of more advanced ideas. The leading and simplest theory is that a particular kind of unseen " energy field" (known as the Higgs field) exists throughout the universe, which - unusually - has non-zero strength everywhere. This kind of field was shown in the 1960s to be theoretically capable of producing a Higgs mechanism in nature, and particles interacting with this field would acquire mass. During the 1960s and 1970s the Standard Model of physics was developed on this basis, and it included a prediction and requirement that for these things to be true, there had to be an undiscovered fundamental particle as the counterpart of this field. This particle would be the Higgs boson (or "Higgs particle"), the last unobserved particle of the Standard Model. The Higgs boson's existence would confirm this part of the Standard Model and allow further development, while its non-existence would confirm that other theories are needed instead. |
In the Higgs mechanism, it's clear that 3 HF components are absorbed and the fourth is realized as the Higgs boson.
In Yukawa coupling in the same context, does the same happen (3 couple and 1 is realized as HB), or do all 4 couple and HB is not realized in this interaction?
If the latter can someone (TR?) correct my intro edit to read something like: One of two processes can occur. Three of the components of the Higgs field are then "absorbed" by the SU(2) gauge bosons (the " Higgs mechanism") and the fourth component very briefly becomes a Higgs boson, or else all 4 components couple to fermions (via Yukawa coupling), in both cases causing these elementary particles to acquire mass.
Thanks FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
1st and 4th para duplicate a sentence:
1st - It [the Higgs field] would also confirm how fundamental particles acquire mass, open doorways to completely new knowledge, and guide future theories and discoveries in particle physics, and may shed light on a number of other research topics.
4th - If confirmed, proof of the Higgs field and evidence of its properties is likely to greatly affect human understanding of the universe, validate the final unconfirmed part of the Standard Model as essentially correct, indicate which of several current particle physics theories are more likely correct, and open up "new" physics beyond current theories.
Can you figure which is the better combined wording, update the 1st para, and remove from the 4th para (leaving the 3rd para much shorter). I think the final sentence about "if the Higgs field doesn't exist" should stay where it is though, to stop the 1st para getting too long and hard for readers.
Re-check on your 3rd para edit (see original question above). As it now reads, the 3rd para implies one single process and not two independent processes. In other words it implies that 3 field components absorb into gauge bosons giving them mass (correct) and simultaneously or as a result (dubious) the 4th component also couples to fermions giving them mass (with any quantum excitations of the fermions being what we detect as the boson).
That's surely not what is meant for 2 reasons: 1/ it implies the gauge bosons couldn't be massive unless fermions happened to also be present, 2/ sources all say that the 4th component is realized as the Higgs boson (presumably whether or not fermions are present and independent of any Yukawa coupling), not that the 4th component couples to fermions and it is fermion excitation that we detect as the Higgs boson. I think if these are indeed two completely independent interactions (Higgs mechanism->gauge bosons and Yukawa coupling->fermions, with the Higgs boson realized in the 1st case only, or both) then we need to be clearer on that point.
The image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elementary_particle_interactions.svg suggests that the Higgs field also couples to neutrinos in the SM, this is not true since the Yukawa interaction requires coupling to a left handed (weak) isospin doublet and a right handed singlet - if I'm not mistaken. The image also indicates a copuling of the photon to neutrinos, which can't be due to lack of electric charge. 92.201.63.113 ( talk) 17:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)merualhemio
I am an expert in physics, but most folks are not. Since the Higgs Boson is getting such much attention and is a wide area of concern, I ask assistance with other editors in toning down the technical language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Very good. But it takes some background explanation. Let me take a stab at it. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 04:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor claiming to be "an expert in physics" (see above) is trying to add a paragraph on doomsday "vacuum instability" scenarios in the lead. This paragraph gives undue relevance to a rather technical topic - vacuum instability - which is already covered in the article, and which has no implications for the safety of the LHC experiments, see e.g. here (in particular the paragraph on "vacuum bubbles"). The anonymous editor quotes web articles about a talk by Lykken on vacuum instability, but nowhere in those articles can you find alarmist sentences such as "a single particle could trigger another universe coming into existence".
To give an idea of the attitude of this purported expert in physics, I am pasting here the exchange that we just had on my own talk page. I have no time for edit wars and I will be away until tomorrow anyway, thus I invite other editors to jump in. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I added the section for non technical readers since fireballs of doom explains it in plain english rather than jargon. However, I disagree and the reason I do is that curiousity killed the cat. CERN is playing with our lives if this is true and caution in proceeding with this type of research is advised. So no, its not inappropriate. What are your thoughts on this. I am a former weapons designer and worked on reactor design and nuclear kinetics and I know more than most the danger of this type of research. If they believe this those particle accelerators need to be shut down and remodeled before destroying the planet. Based upon my review of their calculations, such an event would lower gravity ratios in space time on the planet and the effect would cause nukes to simply detonate in place if what Lykken said is really true and they actually create such a particle. It has characteristics of a tachyon, and tachyon's as modeled posesses infinite power -- BOOM!. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The net of their calculations indicate that the flow of time would accelerate (the invariant result of the vacuum itself) -- a coke can would become radioactive, trees, people, iron and lighter elements would start emiting alpha particles and beta decay as the weak force gets even weaker. Dangerous stuff to play with -- all they have to do is get just the right alignment and they may just create a higgs boson. There is a reason that particular particle is hidden beneath the structure of reality. It's pretty clear things like this happen out in the cosmos naturally, which is why quasars and neutron stars exist -- let's not create one on the surface of this planet. This particle they are attempting to model and create may just turn the earth into a star in seconds. get the picture. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 04:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed your comments in the edit summary and the content verbatim quotes the statements of CERN about this situation. The materials are sourced and notable. CERN is researching and discovered this particle and their public comments are certainly worthy of being placed center stage. I do understand that many employees and researchers at CERN and other places may have jobs on the line if society decides to discontinue funding of these activities for the safety of the planet. WP:COI may apply here. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've published three textbooks on Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Kinetics -- two of them are used all over the US in universities kiddo. I have been involved in research for over 30 years at this place - Los Alamos National Laboratory. Try to figure out who I am. Anyway - now I know what wikiality is all about. I have a book being published in a month or so -- titled "The Laws of Temporal Reality". Outskirts Press is the publisher. You can read it when it comes out, then you will know who I am. :) 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I have not seen a single salient discussion about physics on this page other than mine. Just follow on by the Higgs enterage of wannabees. Let me translate -- modern physics is filled with students who are nothing more than parrots of the party line -- universities don't know any better so they produce people who only know their views. 400 years ago, all of you would claim the sun rotates around the earth and state this was the reality of existence. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 19:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think people should think about how dangerous some of this stuff is. So I leave you with this. I may know something the general physics community doesn't know based on actual experimental data. They almost created a tachyon in the LHC. The real thing is nothing like the model -- its a composite particle with the following ratios [2.2.1]. What they saw were two fields and a particle that spontaneously decomposed into a line gowing both forwards and backwards through time -- four photons and two guage bosons. Check the weather patterns over Northern New Mexico for mid July of 2012 and you may see what looks like an accreation disk opening just south of Sante Fe that created a storm and magnetic distortions that would be visible planet wide and a wall of clouds towering upwards to almost 40,000 feet. Wonder what got turned on in Los Alamos -- I can tell you it got turned off real quick. If someone placed a nuclear warhead and a button detonator in a group of chimpanzees, you can calculate what will happen in about 4.2 seconds. One of the stupid apes will push the button -- so much for the curiousity of humans. :) 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I know. And I also know that once this is published, it will appear all over your site. I've solved the the unified theory of physics and that's what is being published. Magnetism and gravity are now unified and gravity is an emergent force, so string theory that got that right -- they got something else right too about the structure of matter and never knew it. I have been working on this all my life, and my greatest fear is what this planet will do with it. It's possible to alter temporal reality but it requires infinite energy to do so. Inside this paper are the designs for a device that creates infinite power, a single device that will power the entire planet. I have every reason to believe this book will be sequestered within days of publication. You may be surprised to learn just how simple reality is. The higg's field does not exist, and the higgs mechanism and all these nonsense symmetry laws are misstated. chiral symmetry is not a law that is enforced unless chiral forces shoose to enforce it. The model is assemetric and the arrow of time exists. so I will waste no more of your time. After publication, you are welcome to contact me directly. You will know who I am. Have a great day. :) 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, this is better. It's not a higg's boson guys -- Higg's is WRONG. It has a spin of 2, it has parity, it doesn't match the model proposed by higgs (0,0). They have not modeled how it mediates the strong interaction and their data for the weak interaction does not match Higg's predictions either -- their data is fudged. They have not explained the ghost image in their data. The only conclusion I can draw from their data is they saw a tachyonic particle. Rather than debate it (which discovery of a tachyon is a WAY BIGGER deal than the stupid Higg's boson, BTW), I will get in line with the rest of matter and energy crowd. They are going to discover its unlikely that any particles with a 0 spin exist -- angular momentum IS energy and mass. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
User 68.69.166.126, would you please provide me with a substantive link that corroborates what you're saying concerning the spin, parity, etc.? Every single article I'm reading is saying the same thing: scientific confirmation for the genus "Higgs boson" with room allotted within that genus for additional Higgs species. I think it's wrong to describe the particle as "tentatively observed" on two grounds: 1) it hasn't been observed at all: as you yourself pointed out, only its path of decay has been observed, and 2) every article on every website I'm reading is saying in no uncertain terms that the Higgs boson exists. Yes, more review and more experimentation is necessary--but not toward the question of the existence of the Higgs boson, only its potential subspecies. I'm looking for what you're saying toward contradictions between Peter Higgs's predictions and what we have here before us, and I can't find them. Please help us out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32C5:98C0:21E:C2FF:FEAB:F7AD ( talk) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Hope you know how to read the data I post here. If not, I will try to explain it. I am running it down now. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I will go find it for you. I also modeled it from their data. Their initial data shows a spin of 2, which is what it actually should be if it really is a higgs boson, not 0. Higg's dated nonsense was developed in the 1960's and 1970's before we knew that the speed of light was greater in the early universe. I added some stuff in the article to explain it. I will run down the ref for you. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 21:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
ref 1:
See the second boson. It's actually the same particle. Based on my modeling of this data, this second boson is the same particle, but what's wierd is that its not two particles but really one at two different frames of reference, one travelling forward and the other backward through time, that's why there were 4 photons from the decay and the other two photo's appear to be anti-photons. Exactly what you would see if lets say a tachyon mediated the creation of the higg's boson. The higg's field may in fact be a tachyonic field of tachyons, which, when they decay, produce a higg's boson with angular momentum and another with reverse momentum, which rapidly disappates and replaces the decayed tachyon. This would imply the Higg's field is in fact two fields made of tachyons, one of these fields fairly static. I am running down the spin data now. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
You have a computer, use google. Just checked and the headlines are shifting back and forth. Just take your pick. Try the news site on google and enter higgs boson. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 00:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I see FT has restored his nonsense distription of the Higgs mechanism:
It is believed that the electroweak interaction (one of a few universal forces) usually "divides" into two very different forces which act on different particles ( electromagnetism and the weak force). This is known as ' symmetry breaking'. Nobody knows for sure how it happens. Finding the answer would be monumental to human knowledge and physical science (see 'Significance' below).
The "Higgs mechanism" describes how physicists think this might happen in nature. If a specific kind of energy field happened to exist in nature, then any massless particles created when symmetry breaks "absorb" energy from the field to become massive. The two forces differ because particles responsible for the electromagnetic force ( photons) remain massless, and can travel and act over immense distances, but particles responsible for the weak force gain mass, and can therefore only travel an extremely short distance before they break apart.
Lets pick this apart line for line:
As you see, I had some very good reasons to rewrite this bit of gibberish. Lets just focus on basics that anyone can understand "The Higgs mechanism explains why the weak force has a short range." Instead of the esoterich bull crap that is currently there. (end of rant mode, sorry for the harsh language) T R 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments on your dissection above, and why I disagree
|
---|
|
Proposed HM description is a classic mistake of "does not answer the question". The question is "what is the Higgs mechanism?". The text proposed answers this by saying "HM explains why particles acquire mass when laws of nature are broken" (sorry but that is how it reads) and then recaps the effects of EWSB. It doesn't speak to the actual question. It doesn't explain what HM is. It palms the reader off by saying "it's the label for whatever does EWSB" and describing the effects of EWSB. Relevant but not speaking to the question.
What is the Higgs mechanism? It is a mathematical proof that if you 1/ have a gauge field theory and 2/ you feel symmetry breaking is needed to explain one interaction manifesting as two and the existence of mass, but don't want the theory to predict new massless particles, THEN, 3/ if an extra field of a specific kind happened to also exist, it would in theory 4/ modify the "usual" symmetry breaking process, so that instead of new massless particles we get a kind of combo deal leading to expected massive ones.
Put that in non-technical terms and we'll be answering the question.
I think we understand each other here and have a lot of common ground, we should be able to handle this like others in the past. But doing it by revert on the article page is unsightly. What I'd like to ask is, suppose we collaborate here on figuring out a single (jointly edited) bullet list of what we need to say and how to say it, and discuss points as needed. I was drafting what I thought, to start it, then I realized perhaps I se where the problem is. Try this:
We have a table of 3 explanatory boxes (HM, HF, HB). The HM is the context for HF, and HF the context for HB, so it's easy for a reader who's read one, to "get" the following, and easy for us to keep them short. I think we may have missed one box though. There is a zeroth box, briefly describing EWSB. That's the context for HM (i.e. should be EWSB -> HM -> HF -> HB). It's why my HM version has 2 paragraphs and yours one, and why the HM section is being difficult. The HM paragraph is trying to explain not only HM, but also the underlying context within which HM makes sense, as meaningful background, namely EWSB and symmetries. Because HM doesn't make sense without these, it's not able to skip them in explaining HM.
Can you have a go, maybe add a prior short EWSB paragraph, and see what that does. It only has to explain a little, in simple terms. Some key points might be these:
HM then picks up from there, which makes it much simpler.
We can keep the HM paragraph short, because we've explained EWSB and other more basic principles and context in the prior paragraph, keeping it simple. (I had used the term "divides", as a simple term that conveys "manifesting as two distinct forces" to most lay readers. I think the above is easier, if accurate. Of course it's correct to say "has its symmetry broken", but we need to remember this can be quite intimidating "jargon" to many users)
Hope I got the technical details roughly right, if not please excuse and correct. FT2 ( Talk | email) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I read the discussion above very quickly because I am currently busy with my own work, but in general I sympathize with TR's point of view: we should not make incorrect statements just because they sound simpler to grasp in one non-expert editor's head. They will still sound abstruse to most other non-expert readers, and on top of that we will be left with a nonsensical article. Formulating statements that are at the same time correct and accessible to the lay readers is of course quite difficult even for the experts, but it becomes almost impossible without a solid understanding of the topic. I am sorry to say this, but somtimes I have the impression that FT2 - well-meaning as he/she may be - lacks that necessary understanding. For example, in the discussion above FT2 keeps repeating things such as 'It is believed that the electroweak interaction (...) divides into two very different forces (...) This is known as symmetry breaking". TR has tried several times to explain that symmetry breaking has nothing to do with the fact that the EW interaction divides in two forces. In fact, there are two fundamental forces to start with, i.e. those associated with the SU(2) and U(1) gauge groups, respectively. The effect of symmetry breaking is that a combination of those two forces, i.e. the weak force, becomes short-range (while the rest, i.e. the electromagnetic force, remains long-range because the breaking of the symmetry is only partial). However, this explanation appears to go over FT2's head, and he/she keeps repeating his/her own flawed interpretation until the very end (see "the fundamental EW force manifests as two very different forces (EM + W)"). It would really be a pity if, as a result, TR became discouraged and gave up improving the article... This said, I apologize for not participating more constructively in the discussion, but as I mentioned above I really don't have time now. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. this example may help dispel FT2's confusion: consider a hypothetical situation in which the ground state breaks U(1)_EM too. In this case, the "weak" and "electromagnetic" forces would not look so different (both would be short-range, mediated by massive bosons), but the EW symmetry would be more completely broken than in the Standard Model. It should then be clear that "symmetry breaking" does not correspond to the fact that the weak and EM forces look very different from each other. To suggest that this is the case (as the lead still does) is a disservice to the readers. We offer them a picture that seems easier to digest, but in fact is incorrect. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I propose the lead section should be shortened and should adhere to WP:ss , the article feedback generaly indicates that the lead is too long for most people and that they would like a summary as lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybirdd ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In the popular media, it is being reported as fact that the Higgs boson has been discovered and its existence confirmed. Consider this NPR story, with its caption saying "Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of the Higgs boson on July 4, the long-sought building block of the universe." Should such statements go unchallenged or unreported in this article? BecurSansnow ( talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Something like this, as a subsection to "non technical overview" maybe?
A number of misconceptions about the Higgs boson have entered popular myth. Examples include: [10]
Myth | Reality |
---|---|
The Higgs boson (or particle) has been discovered. | A previously unknown particle has been proven to exist. It is not confirmed in any way whether or not it is actually a Higgs boson, or some other kind of new particle (although many people believe the former). |
There is only a 1 in (some number) million chance the Higgs boson does not exist | The 1 in millions figure (which changes over time) relates to the discovery of a particle. It does not say how likely that particle is to be a Higgs boson at all. (Technically it represents the chance that random background processes made it look like this particle exists, when it does not.) |
The Higgs boson creates the Higgs field | This is the wrong way around - if the boson exists, then the Higgs field would be the reason the boson exists. |
The Higgs boson is responsible for all mass. | The Higgs field (and not the boson) would be responsible for the mass of a number of fundamental particles. Even so, that would still only be a small part of all the mass we see around us. |
The Higgs field is kind of space-filling medium, a bit like the aether. | The Higgs field - if it exists - would be a quantum field that exists throughout space and pervades space, but it is not a substance, and cannot in any sense "fill" space. (A naive and simple analogy is that of gravity or the earth's magnetic field, which pervade but do not "fill", and can be detected by their effect on other particles). |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The article contained a bogus explanation of why forces with massive gauge bosons have a short range. (I think I may have made the mistake first.) Unlike what was stated in the article this has nothing to do with the gauge bosons decaying. (It is fairly easy to construct a model with massive gauge bosons which are stable.) Instead it has to do with the fact that, massless boson can have any wavelength, while the wavelength of a massive boson is limited by its rest mass. For an detailed explanation see [2]. T R 10:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
We state at the moment that it is possible for symmetries not to be followed (or "obeyed"). I've never been too happy with that phrasing, though "not followed" is at least bearable. I'm a bit hazy on this but would it more accurately describe the situation, to say instead that other processes can cause symmetrical laws to produce asymmetrical outcomes? (this was the description in one paper on HM and seems to match most descriptions of what HM actually involves) If not, in what sense is it "not obeyed" rather than something else? And is it just one symmetry that HM breaks in SM, or 3? FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
(unindent) I have now edited the wording since I think this gives a better way to say it. The problem you raise about the technical term "broken symmetry" (ie a field may cause a broken symmetry) is its jargon. But the concept can be expressed nicely in terms of broken conditions per above - symmetries hold under certain conditions, and a field exists which 'breaks' those conditions. That's very ordinary English, not jargon. So I've used it as it's both simpler and (per above, I gather?) maybe also a bit more exact. FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In three places we refer to the "vacuum state" and eight places we refer to the "ground state". Are these synonyms, and should we make them consistent?
Also if they are synonyms, then are the articles vacuum state and ground state essentially the same or extremely similar topics?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To "Gauge invariance is an important property of modern particle theories such as the Standard Model, partly due to its success in other areas of fundamental physics such as electromagnetism and the strong interaction (quantum chromodynamics)." one may choose something like this instead:
Standard Model is important as much as the Table of Elements is important because it fixes the single types of particles into system. This helps us to build a firm set of scientific beliefs as these particles are classified. As they are classified, they enter a puzzle where they are supposed to add description to one another. This has been successful with building the Table of Elements and continues with the Standard Model as well, in keeping us stuck to what is actually in nature and how this deepest level of particles can/do represent nature.
As with Table of Elements, I've thought that one would use a reliable confirmation method of these particles, but to varying degrees this must now be otherwise. Contrary to the best-standing particles that are now more or less absolute, description associated with the Standard Model has gone from particle description to theory description mixed with particle description and this has lead to a more unreliable Standard Model.
However, choosing your own scientifically steady particles can help to reduce the blur and bring forward a more steady work in physics, overall, I think. Good luck to you!
62.16.242.218 (
talk)
14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
FT2's recent addition on the issue of vacuum stability misses a key point. In particular, the sentence "if ... the Standard Model is correct" should be replaced with "if ... the Standard Model provides a correct description of particle physics up to the Planck scale", which is a quite different concept. Indeed, the SM might well be "correct" as an effective theory at the energy scales accessible to present-day experiments, but it might be embedded in an extended theory at an intermediate energy scale well below the Planck scale (where it must anyway be extended to describe gravity). In that case, the arguments on vacuum stability based on the evolution of the SM Higgs quartic coupling up to the Planck scale would not apply.
Another issue is that a big chunk of the new section is taken by the summary of the findings of a single recent scholarly paper. This is definitely frowned upon in Wikipedia, we should rather find a secondary source or wait until such a source becomes available. Moreover, the choice of scholarly paper looks somewhat arbitrary: it might be argued that other recent papers on the subject, e.g. arXiv:1205.6497, were much more influential than arXiv:1207.0980. The latter mainly addressed a technical point on how the top mass used as input in the calculation should be defined. Finally, the sentence "The authors conclude that ..." comes a bit out of nowhere, it is not clear which authors it is referring to. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that it may be important to note within this section that the discovery has also changed the way physicists are looking at the universe, and it's eventual end.
http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-boson-particle-may-spell-doom-universe-152236961.html
I have found this article explaining what I'm talking about. I couldn't find a way to explain it in a way that makes sense. - Poodle of Doom ( talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This entire article needs to be completely re-written by someone who is a writer first and may or may not be physicist. The current writing style is lacks clarity of thought despite all the information being present. As a simple example look at the Encyclopedia Britannica's first sentence on this same topic. The difference in clarity is striking. Articles need to be written not to satisfy ego by demonstrating knowledge that others do not have, but with an eye of conveying the information clearly. This article is atrocious and if submitted to me by a student I would hand it back and offer the opportunity to re-write it or take a failing grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.56.5 ( talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The Higgs Boson was found in late 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.102.214 ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The box on the tests to validate the SM-Higgs hypothesis contains the sentence "Spin-2, also considered, would be ruled out if decay to two tau leptons (τ τ) is proven", with a reference to a blog. Even without doing the math, this seems suspicious to me, for several simple reasons: 1) Kaluza-Klein gravitons are well-studied examples of (hypothetical) spin-2 particles, and they do decay into two leptons - see e.g. papers for the corresponding searches by ATLAS and CMS; 2) there is now a strong indication that the 125-GeV particle does decay into taus (see e.g. today's talk in Moriond) and nobody seems to be drawing implications on its spin; 3) in the comment section of the cited blog, none less than Frank Close (Oxford) convincingly criticizes the author's argument as incorrect. I guess that the moral of the story is that blog posts shouldn't be used as sources, I am going to remove the statement until somebody provides a more solid reference. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
add info from this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23241-shy-higgs-boson-continues-to-vex-particle-hunters.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.165.98 ( talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
also
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23245-rumour-points-to-completely-boring-higgs-boson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.165.98 ( talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion: One could say that the constant Higgs field of the vacuum changes the mass of particles just like an external position-dependent electric field changes the momentum of an electron. I think it makes the explanation less vague.¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarafa66 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
A user left this as feedback:
This strikes me as pertinent feedback, does he have a fair point and can we do better? FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
...sorry, a little excited there, but look at this! http://www.space.com/20226-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html Draconiator ( talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
CERN confirmed the Higgs boson this morning (3/14/2013) on KTVU/FOX News, COMCAST Channel 2, Oakland, CA, USA! Please update Higgs boson article accordingly.
JPD 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPD.Enterprises ( talk • contribs)
Agreed. At this point, we need a more definitive statement beginning this article that doesn't include "predicted." The Higgs boson now, according to consensus and review, actually exists. It is not "predicted" to exist at this point--and it's no more appropriate to equivocate on the nature of its existence then it is to do so on the existence of the electron or the quark. We may not know the complete nature of this Higgs, but we do know, according to what we're being told, that the Higgs--dramatic pause--is real. 2602:306:32C5:98C0:21E:C2FF:FEAB:F7AD ( talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Just skimming through this page but it appears that the first few lines cover recent developments but don't go into a concise explanation of what the Higgs Boson actually is. What do you think about having a first section that plays the role of introduction to the concept ? -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This section seems to be rationalizing the incredible investment that was made to discover the Higgs boson. It would be nice if there was a little more than just saying, "well we didn't think radio waves would be useful when we first discovered them, but they are now!". According to Proton decay, the Higgs boson should catalyze proton decay. Can this ever be useful in generating energy or is the lifetime too short? ScienceApe ( talk) 00:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase
has syntax that remains ambiguous until one reaches the singular "field", and thereby invites a pause to puzzle over whether
I thus presume that our colleague either
(And IMO the temporary ambiguity is exacerbated by the hyphen-ish-looking unspaced em-dash separating the four-word noun phrase, that immediately follows "is", from the 22-word appositive phrase that ends the sentence.) And thus presume as well that they will agree, on reflection, with my addition of the useful (if arguably not mandatory) hyphen in
and with my replacement of the em-dash with first two words of a phrase beginning
Or, BTW, perhaps someone will suggest a more precise word than my ideas, "constitutes", "embodies", or just "is".
(Well, in the offing, i encountered other complications, and, hopefully, resolved differently the same wording problems; i shall let my last wording speak for itself as a more workable solution to the issues i raised above.)
--
Jerzy•
t
01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I was looking over the article.
During the first half of 2012, the problem was mainly that the article was inaccessible, poorly explained, and missed large chunks of central info. To fix it, a couple of overview and "simple explanation" sections were added. We still need some of these, but we've brought this topic quite a long way. The basic concepts are now much better explained (for this level of project) and also more exact and comprehensive. Now that we have figured (roughly) how to explain the topic, I think we could shortly re-condense and refactor, in order to reduce duplication that was once needed, and also to address incidents where the article contains multiple explanations of essentially the same background. We now know how to appropriately explain the Higgs boson, field and mechanism, so it doesn't need saying twice nearly as much.
I am not suggesting we do this "now" or "yet" but I am thinking we should do it at some point, and interested in feedback if people think it's possible. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Physicists, of course, won't even notice the unintended reading.
— MaxEnt 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The current lead of the article is too long. (see WP:LEADLENGTH) It needs to be condensed to 4 paragraphs at most. T R 15:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that the HB "History" section is more like a "History of the Standard Model". Not a surprise, as the history of the Higgs boson (and electroweak theory, Higgs mechanism etc) to a great extent is the history of the Standard Model or greatly overlaps it.
To fix this, much like the "search" section, a lot of this ought to be moved off to an article History of the Standard Model and summarized here. We have "history of..." articles for many aspects of physics but not for the SM itself. If we had such an article then this section could be (rightly) cut down a lot.
I've made a start at working on such an article here if interested and would like to ask for your help to keep an eye on it and suggest when it's at least capable of going mainspace. That way we can cut down the HB article history and link to that (new) article for the detail which would be good.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
During the 1950s theoreticians had struggled because while gauge field theories seemed desirable and worked in other areas, when theories such as Yang-Mills were applied to a possible electroweak force and its symmetries, they failed, because they predicted particles and forces that clearly didn't exist. This was a result of Goldstone's theorem, which seemed to demand such particles would be created if symmetry was broken. The theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking (Nambu, 1960), and the subsequent suggestion that the previous theoretical problems could perhaps be resolved this way if another field with an unusual but not impossible structure was involved (Anderson, 1962), led to three independent near-simultaneous papers in 1964 which together outlined a fully relevatistic theory for such a field, authored by Englert and Brout in August 1964, Higgs in October 1964, and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble ("GHK"). A formal description for the electroweak theory based on spontaneous symmetry breaking within a gauge-invariant quantum field emerged shortly after in 1967, when Weinberg and Salam independently applied these ideas to Glashow's incomplete electroweak interaction theory. Despite this progress, most of these proposals received relatively little attention at publication, quantum field theory being seen in the 1960s as a dead end; however the final piece of the puzzle, the proof of renormalization by 't Hooft and Veltman (1971), and promotion by Benjamin Lee, led to its widespread acceptance and retrospective recognition of many of the works involved as meriting Nobel prizes or other prestigious awards. |
A few days ago, the editor Cjean42 included in this article (and in other related articles) a diagram that I subsequently deleted as I found it very unclear and bordering on WP:OR. A (civil ;-) discussion on Cjean42's talk page ensued:
Text pasted from Cjean42's talk page |
---|
Hey Cjean42, I noticed that you have been attaching what appear to be self-produced diagrams all over the particle physics articles.
Now, one problem with those diagrams is that they are very unclear (and I write this with a certain knowledge of the subject - check my contributions to convince yourself). Look e.g., at the diagram that you posted in the Higgs article: what is on the axes? what do the different colors and different symbols represent? All of those things may have a meaning for you, but they are meaningless to the reader. Another (perhaps bigger) problem is that your diagrams appear to reflect your personal interpretation of the concepts depicted, and they do not resemble very much any standard diagram in the scientific literature (please correct me if I'm wrong). In other words, those diagrams amount to original research, and as such they do not belong in a Wikipedia article (check the guidelines to convince yourself). Unless you can show that your diagrams do in fact reflect the standard of the scientific literature, I will remove them from the particle physics articles. I hope you take this the right way, i.e. not as a personal attack against you but rather as an attempt to ensure the clarity of the articles and the respect of the guidelines of Wikipedia. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 12:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Now I feel that the discussion has reached a point where it would benefit from the input of other editors. TR, FT2, anybody else who's interested, could you please have a look at it? What do you think about the disputed diagram? Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made an updated diagram that might be more clear. It's a plot of the weak hypercharge, Y, and weak isospin, W, of the Standard Model and Higgs field states, showing how the neutral Higgs (circled) determines electric charge, Q, at the weak mixing angle. One can also see in the plot, via charge conservation, how the neutral Higgs interacts, mixing the left and right fermion states to give them mass. This is a pretty minimal version of the plot. If you think it would be better, we could label the particle states, such as with eL and eR near the electron states, etc. Or we could add charges along any axis, such as 1/3, 2/3, 1 near the Q tics. Or add W and Y tics. But the more is added, the busier the plot gets, which is why I've used colors and shapes instead of labels. Or it might be better not to use these plots at all. Up to you -- they are a gift to Wikipedia. Cjean42 ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that Cjean42 has included in the article an updated version of his/her diagram. I think that: 1) this diagram would still look very obscure to the average reader; 2) it is not really necessary to provide the SU(2) and U(1) charges of the SM fermions in this article (moreover, there are no values on the axes, so the info is not even given in full); 3) the sentences in the caption "The four components of the Higgs field (squares) break the electroweak symmetry and interact with other particles to give them mass, with three components becoming part of the massive W and Z bosons. Allowed decays of the neutral Higgs boson, H, (circled) satisfy electroweak charge conservation." have very little relation with the actual diagram (I mean, where do you see that the Higgs breaks the EW symmetry and gives mass to the other particles?).
For these reasons, I would still remove the diagram from the Higgs boson article. Perhaps an amended version of the diagram could still go in the Weinberg angle article, after all it does show that weak isospin and hypercharge combine into electric charge. But what do the other editors think about it? Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The diagram is useful to readers because it matches the mathematical description in this section using a simple plot. You can see the charges of the four components of the Higgs field, and how these relate to the other particles according to their electroweak charges. These charges nicely summarize what the Higgs field is and how it interacts with other particles, seen in a visual way in this diagram, via charge conservation. To answer Ptrslv72's specific questions: The neutral Higgs, H, breaks the electroweak symmetry by specifying a direction in this diagram, with electric charge perpendicular to this direction. This same field, H, links the left and right handed fermion components, as can be seen by vector addition in the diagram, matching the mathematical description in this section. (For example, add H to uL to get uR.) You can also see the decays allowed by charge conservation, such as H -> uR + anti-uR. The information in this section is presented nicely for a reader in this charge diagram. I do think it's now less confusing, thanks to your previous input. I hope you agree and decide to keep it here. Cjean42 ( talk) 01:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The choice of symbols is a bit fanciful, but I can see how this electroweak charge plot would be useful to readers. If nothing else, it shows the Higgs boson as one of four components of the Higgs field. And, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but it did instantly remind me that the weak hypercharge of the Higgs field is 1, and not 1/2 as was here previously. - Dilaton ( talk) 12:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I merged in the article Higgs field and redirected. rationale is on that article's talk page:
from that page...
|
---|
The article on the Higgs boson has been improved over the last few months, and is now a better quality description, including at lay-level, while this article seems poor quality with quite a bit of speculative WP:OR. It doesn't need a separate "less technical" article now (or if it does then it is easy to modify that page for the purpose), which was part of the original motive for this page. Also it's dubious whether a separate page is needed for a field and its quantum, given that this is a case where both are still strictly speaking, hypothetical. Finally unlike longer known fields and their quanta, where we may have a lot more to say on both, there's little we can say about either of Higgs field or Higgs boson, that doesn't apply to the other, so there's a lot of redundancy. On the basis any valuable sourced or useful content is retained, I'd like to merge these pages. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The sole useful content from that page - and even this would need checking for sources, balance and WP:OR - is best described as "Other speculation and discussion related to the Higgs field" - which is legitimate since it has evoked speculation both within the physics community and science writers, and elsewhere. The content that might be salvageable is:
possible salvageable content, to review?
|
---|
[T]he Higgs mechanism is often credited with explaining the "origin" or "genesis" of mass. [1] But there is some doubt as to whether the Higgs mechanism provides sufficient insight into the actual nature of mass. As Max Jammer puts it, "if a process 'generates' mass it may reasonably be expected to provide information about the nature of what it 'generates' as well". [2] But in the Higgs mechanism, mass is not "generated" in the particle by a miraculous creatio ex nihilo, it is transferred to the particle from the Higgs field, which contained that mass in the form of energy, and "neither the Higgs mechanism nor its elaborations...contribute to our understanding of the nature of mass". [3] By coupling with this field a massless particle acquires potential energy and, by the mass–energy relation, mass. The stronger the coupling, the more massive the particle. (Dubious value) - The way particles acquire mass through interacting with the Higgs field is analogous to blotting paper absorbing ink. [4] Pieces of blotting paper represent individual particles and the ink represents energy. Different particles "soak up" different amounts of energy, depending on "energy absorbing" ability and the strength of the Higgs field. (Speculation of a wider cosmic role, inflation etc) -
One of the main motivations for postulating the Higgs field comes from the quest to find simple, symmetrical laws of nature. [9] Things fall down, not sideways. It required considerable effort to realize that the three dimensions of space are equivalent. Not until Galileo did people learn to "blame the earth" for hiding the simplicity of the principle of inertia. It was a good idea to formulate the basic laws of physics in empty space. Physicists are now convinced that empty space itself is a complicated environment. They "blame the vacuum" for many complications. Background fields permeate empty space. These fields hide the full simplicity and symmetry of physical laws. Heat up a magnet and it becomes demagnetised. Its electrons do not recognize any special direction in space; the system is perfectly symmetric. But cool it down and the electrons align their spin axes due to forces between their spins. The perfect symmetry between the directions of space is destroyed through spontaneous symmetry breaking. Symmetric forces enforce an asymmetric solution. Physical laws are more symmetric than any stable realization of them. Physicists suspect that a similar effect is responsible for the background Higgs field permeating the universe. The answer to the question "Why isn't our vacuum more empty?" is that emptiness is unstable. who? Just as the electromagnetic field is higher near heavily charged particles, the Higgs field should be higher near heavy particles. For instance, near a Z boson—an object that accelerators should be able to produce in great abundance in the near future—the Higgs field is changed. The Z boson is unstable. When it decays into lighter particles, the disturbance in the Higgs field must take on another form. It might become a travelling disturbance in the Higgs field itself—a packet of energy propagating outward-a Higgs boson. The Higgs particle is to the pervasive mass-generating Higgs field what the photon is to electromagnetic fields. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to be confused |
---|
Higgs mechanism The mechanism that explains why gauge bosons become massive when the corresponding symmetry is spontaneously broken. |
Higgs field The field that break the elektroweak symmetry in the Standard Model. |
Higgs boson The particle excitation of the Higgs field. |
There is currently a lot of duplication between the Background and History sections. In addition the background section still suffers from being unreferenced. I think one we can deal with this, is by merging the Background section into the History section (Possibly renaming it "History and Background"). The current bullet points clarifying the terminology around the Higgs mechanism/field/particle are very useful. However, I think they would work better if they were condensed to 1-2 sentences, and presented as a float. Any thoughts or comments? T R 10:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have drafted a suggestion for a floating table to replace the terminology section on the right. T R 23:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The removed text, some material has been reused or simplified, review if wished
|
---|
While there are several symmetries in nature that are spontaneously broken through a form of the Higgs mechanism, in the context of the Standard Model the term "Higgs mechanism" almost always refers to symmetry breaking of the electroweak field. Electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) itself is considered proven, and believed responsible for the mass of fundamental particles and also the differences between the electromagnetic and weak nuclear interactions which cease to be unified below a very high temperature of about 1015 K. But the exact cause has been exceedingly difficult to prove; the lack of adequate data in this area has also limited the development and testing of more advanced ideas. The leading and simplest theory is that a particular kind of unseen " energy field" (known as the Higgs field) exists throughout the universe, which - unusually - has non-zero strength everywhere. This kind of field was shown in the 1960s to be theoretically capable of producing a Higgs mechanism in nature, and particles interacting with this field would acquire mass. During the 1960s and 1970s the Standard Model of physics was developed on this basis, and it included a prediction and requirement that for these things to be true, there had to be an undiscovered fundamental particle as the counterpart of this field. This particle would be the Higgs boson (or "Higgs particle"), the last unobserved particle of the Standard Model. The Higgs boson's existence would confirm this part of the Standard Model and allow further development, while its non-existence would confirm that other theories are needed instead. |
In the Higgs mechanism, it's clear that 3 HF components are absorbed and the fourth is realized as the Higgs boson.
In Yukawa coupling in the same context, does the same happen (3 couple and 1 is realized as HB), or do all 4 couple and HB is not realized in this interaction?
If the latter can someone (TR?) correct my intro edit to read something like: One of two processes can occur. Three of the components of the Higgs field are then "absorbed" by the SU(2) gauge bosons (the " Higgs mechanism") and the fourth component very briefly becomes a Higgs boson, or else all 4 components couple to fermions (via Yukawa coupling), in both cases causing these elementary particles to acquire mass.
Thanks FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
1st and 4th para duplicate a sentence:
1st - It [the Higgs field] would also confirm how fundamental particles acquire mass, open doorways to completely new knowledge, and guide future theories and discoveries in particle physics, and may shed light on a number of other research topics.
4th - If confirmed, proof of the Higgs field and evidence of its properties is likely to greatly affect human understanding of the universe, validate the final unconfirmed part of the Standard Model as essentially correct, indicate which of several current particle physics theories are more likely correct, and open up "new" physics beyond current theories.
Can you figure which is the better combined wording, update the 1st para, and remove from the 4th para (leaving the 3rd para much shorter). I think the final sentence about "if the Higgs field doesn't exist" should stay where it is though, to stop the 1st para getting too long and hard for readers.
Re-check on your 3rd para edit (see original question above). As it now reads, the 3rd para implies one single process and not two independent processes. In other words it implies that 3 field components absorb into gauge bosons giving them mass (correct) and simultaneously or as a result (dubious) the 4th component also couples to fermions giving them mass (with any quantum excitations of the fermions being what we detect as the boson).
That's surely not what is meant for 2 reasons: 1/ it implies the gauge bosons couldn't be massive unless fermions happened to also be present, 2/ sources all say that the 4th component is realized as the Higgs boson (presumably whether or not fermions are present and independent of any Yukawa coupling), not that the 4th component couples to fermions and it is fermion excitation that we detect as the Higgs boson. I think if these are indeed two completely independent interactions (Higgs mechanism->gauge bosons and Yukawa coupling->fermions, with the Higgs boson realized in the 1st case only, or both) then we need to be clearer on that point.
The image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elementary_particle_interactions.svg suggests that the Higgs field also couples to neutrinos in the SM, this is not true since the Yukawa interaction requires coupling to a left handed (weak) isospin doublet and a right handed singlet - if I'm not mistaken. The image also indicates a copuling of the photon to neutrinos, which can't be due to lack of electric charge. 92.201.63.113 ( talk) 17:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)merualhemio
I am an expert in physics, but most folks are not. Since the Higgs Boson is getting such much attention and is a wide area of concern, I ask assistance with other editors in toning down the technical language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Very good. But it takes some background explanation. Let me take a stab at it. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 04:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor claiming to be "an expert in physics" (see above) is trying to add a paragraph on doomsday "vacuum instability" scenarios in the lead. This paragraph gives undue relevance to a rather technical topic - vacuum instability - which is already covered in the article, and which has no implications for the safety of the LHC experiments, see e.g. here (in particular the paragraph on "vacuum bubbles"). The anonymous editor quotes web articles about a talk by Lykken on vacuum instability, but nowhere in those articles can you find alarmist sentences such as "a single particle could trigger another universe coming into existence".
To give an idea of the attitude of this purported expert in physics, I am pasting here the exchange that we just had on my own talk page. I have no time for edit wars and I will be away until tomorrow anyway, thus I invite other editors to jump in. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I added the section for non technical readers since fireballs of doom explains it in plain english rather than jargon. However, I disagree and the reason I do is that curiousity killed the cat. CERN is playing with our lives if this is true and caution in proceeding with this type of research is advised. So no, its not inappropriate. What are your thoughts on this. I am a former weapons designer and worked on reactor design and nuclear kinetics and I know more than most the danger of this type of research. If they believe this those particle accelerators need to be shut down and remodeled before destroying the planet. Based upon my review of their calculations, such an event would lower gravity ratios in space time on the planet and the effect would cause nukes to simply detonate in place if what Lykken said is really true and they actually create such a particle. It has characteristics of a tachyon, and tachyon's as modeled posesses infinite power -- BOOM!. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The net of their calculations indicate that the flow of time would accelerate (the invariant result of the vacuum itself) -- a coke can would become radioactive, trees, people, iron and lighter elements would start emiting alpha particles and beta decay as the weak force gets even weaker. Dangerous stuff to play with -- all they have to do is get just the right alignment and they may just create a higgs boson. There is a reason that particular particle is hidden beneath the structure of reality. It's pretty clear things like this happen out in the cosmos naturally, which is why quasars and neutron stars exist -- let's not create one on the surface of this planet. This particle they are attempting to model and create may just turn the earth into a star in seconds. get the picture. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 04:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed your comments in the edit summary and the content verbatim quotes the statements of CERN about this situation. The materials are sourced and notable. CERN is researching and discovered this particle and their public comments are certainly worthy of being placed center stage. I do understand that many employees and researchers at CERN and other places may have jobs on the line if society decides to discontinue funding of these activities for the safety of the planet. WP:COI may apply here. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've published three textbooks on Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Kinetics -- two of them are used all over the US in universities kiddo. I have been involved in research for over 30 years at this place - Los Alamos National Laboratory. Try to figure out who I am. Anyway - now I know what wikiality is all about. I have a book being published in a month or so -- titled "The Laws of Temporal Reality". Outskirts Press is the publisher. You can read it when it comes out, then you will know who I am. :) 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I have not seen a single salient discussion about physics on this page other than mine. Just follow on by the Higgs enterage of wannabees. Let me translate -- modern physics is filled with students who are nothing more than parrots of the party line -- universities don't know any better so they produce people who only know their views. 400 years ago, all of you would claim the sun rotates around the earth and state this was the reality of existence. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 19:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think people should think about how dangerous some of this stuff is. So I leave you with this. I may know something the general physics community doesn't know based on actual experimental data. They almost created a tachyon in the LHC. The real thing is nothing like the model -- its a composite particle with the following ratios [2.2.1]. What they saw were two fields and a particle that spontaneously decomposed into a line gowing both forwards and backwards through time -- four photons and two guage bosons. Check the weather patterns over Northern New Mexico for mid July of 2012 and you may see what looks like an accreation disk opening just south of Sante Fe that created a storm and magnetic distortions that would be visible planet wide and a wall of clouds towering upwards to almost 40,000 feet. Wonder what got turned on in Los Alamos -- I can tell you it got turned off real quick. If someone placed a nuclear warhead and a button detonator in a group of chimpanzees, you can calculate what will happen in about 4.2 seconds. One of the stupid apes will push the button -- so much for the curiousity of humans. :) 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I know. And I also know that once this is published, it will appear all over your site. I've solved the the unified theory of physics and that's what is being published. Magnetism and gravity are now unified and gravity is an emergent force, so string theory that got that right -- they got something else right too about the structure of matter and never knew it. I have been working on this all my life, and my greatest fear is what this planet will do with it. It's possible to alter temporal reality but it requires infinite energy to do so. Inside this paper are the designs for a device that creates infinite power, a single device that will power the entire planet. I have every reason to believe this book will be sequestered within days of publication. You may be surprised to learn just how simple reality is. The higg's field does not exist, and the higgs mechanism and all these nonsense symmetry laws are misstated. chiral symmetry is not a law that is enforced unless chiral forces shoose to enforce it. The model is assemetric and the arrow of time exists. so I will waste no more of your time. After publication, you are welcome to contact me directly. You will know who I am. Have a great day. :) 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, this is better. It's not a higg's boson guys -- Higg's is WRONG. It has a spin of 2, it has parity, it doesn't match the model proposed by higgs (0,0). They have not modeled how it mediates the strong interaction and their data for the weak interaction does not match Higg's predictions either -- their data is fudged. They have not explained the ghost image in their data. The only conclusion I can draw from their data is they saw a tachyonic particle. Rather than debate it (which discovery of a tachyon is a WAY BIGGER deal than the stupid Higg's boson, BTW), I will get in line with the rest of matter and energy crowd. They are going to discover its unlikely that any particles with a 0 spin exist -- angular momentum IS energy and mass. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
User 68.69.166.126, would you please provide me with a substantive link that corroborates what you're saying concerning the spin, parity, etc.? Every single article I'm reading is saying the same thing: scientific confirmation for the genus "Higgs boson" with room allotted within that genus for additional Higgs species. I think it's wrong to describe the particle as "tentatively observed" on two grounds: 1) it hasn't been observed at all: as you yourself pointed out, only its path of decay has been observed, and 2) every article on every website I'm reading is saying in no uncertain terms that the Higgs boson exists. Yes, more review and more experimentation is necessary--but not toward the question of the existence of the Higgs boson, only its potential subspecies. I'm looking for what you're saying toward contradictions between Peter Higgs's predictions and what we have here before us, and I can't find them. Please help us out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32C5:98C0:21E:C2FF:FEAB:F7AD ( talk) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Hope you know how to read the data I post here. If not, I will try to explain it. I am running it down now. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I will go find it for you. I also modeled it from their data. Their initial data shows a spin of 2, which is what it actually should be if it really is a higgs boson, not 0. Higg's dated nonsense was developed in the 1960's and 1970's before we knew that the speed of light was greater in the early universe. I added some stuff in the article to explain it. I will run down the ref for you. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 21:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
ref 1:
See the second boson. It's actually the same particle. Based on my modeling of this data, this second boson is the same particle, but what's wierd is that its not two particles but really one at two different frames of reference, one travelling forward and the other backward through time, that's why there were 4 photons from the decay and the other two photo's appear to be anti-photons. Exactly what you would see if lets say a tachyon mediated the creation of the higg's boson. The higg's field may in fact be a tachyonic field of tachyons, which, when they decay, produce a higg's boson with angular momentum and another with reverse momentum, which rapidly disappates and replaces the decayed tachyon. This would imply the Higg's field is in fact two fields made of tachyons, one of these fields fairly static. I am running down the spin data now. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
You have a computer, use google. Just checked and the headlines are shifting back and forth. Just take your pick. Try the news site on google and enter higgs boson. 68.69.166.126 ( talk) 00:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I see FT has restored his nonsense distription of the Higgs mechanism:
It is believed that the electroweak interaction (one of a few universal forces) usually "divides" into two very different forces which act on different particles ( electromagnetism and the weak force). This is known as ' symmetry breaking'. Nobody knows for sure how it happens. Finding the answer would be monumental to human knowledge and physical science (see 'Significance' below).
The "Higgs mechanism" describes how physicists think this might happen in nature. If a specific kind of energy field happened to exist in nature, then any massless particles created when symmetry breaks "absorb" energy from the field to become massive. The two forces differ because particles responsible for the electromagnetic force ( photons) remain massless, and can travel and act over immense distances, but particles responsible for the weak force gain mass, and can therefore only travel an extremely short distance before they break apart.
Lets pick this apart line for line:
As you see, I had some very good reasons to rewrite this bit of gibberish. Lets just focus on basics that anyone can understand "The Higgs mechanism explains why the weak force has a short range." Instead of the esoterich bull crap that is currently there. (end of rant mode, sorry for the harsh language) T R 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments on your dissection above, and why I disagree
|
---|
|
Proposed HM description is a classic mistake of "does not answer the question". The question is "what is the Higgs mechanism?". The text proposed answers this by saying "HM explains why particles acquire mass when laws of nature are broken" (sorry but that is how it reads) and then recaps the effects of EWSB. It doesn't speak to the actual question. It doesn't explain what HM is. It palms the reader off by saying "it's the label for whatever does EWSB" and describing the effects of EWSB. Relevant but not speaking to the question.
What is the Higgs mechanism? It is a mathematical proof that if you 1/ have a gauge field theory and 2/ you feel symmetry breaking is needed to explain one interaction manifesting as two and the existence of mass, but don't want the theory to predict new massless particles, THEN, 3/ if an extra field of a specific kind happened to also exist, it would in theory 4/ modify the "usual" symmetry breaking process, so that instead of new massless particles we get a kind of combo deal leading to expected massive ones.
Put that in non-technical terms and we'll be answering the question.
I think we understand each other here and have a lot of common ground, we should be able to handle this like others in the past. But doing it by revert on the article page is unsightly. What I'd like to ask is, suppose we collaborate here on figuring out a single (jointly edited) bullet list of what we need to say and how to say it, and discuss points as needed. I was drafting what I thought, to start it, then I realized perhaps I se where the problem is. Try this:
We have a table of 3 explanatory boxes (HM, HF, HB). The HM is the context for HF, and HF the context for HB, so it's easy for a reader who's read one, to "get" the following, and easy for us to keep them short. I think we may have missed one box though. There is a zeroth box, briefly describing EWSB. That's the context for HM (i.e. should be EWSB -> HM -> HF -> HB). It's why my HM version has 2 paragraphs and yours one, and why the HM section is being difficult. The HM paragraph is trying to explain not only HM, but also the underlying context within which HM makes sense, as meaningful background, namely EWSB and symmetries. Because HM doesn't make sense without these, it's not able to skip them in explaining HM.
Can you have a go, maybe add a prior short EWSB paragraph, and see what that does. It only has to explain a little, in simple terms. Some key points might be these:
HM then picks up from there, which makes it much simpler.
We can keep the HM paragraph short, because we've explained EWSB and other more basic principles and context in the prior paragraph, keeping it simple. (I had used the term "divides", as a simple term that conveys "manifesting as two distinct forces" to most lay readers. I think the above is easier, if accurate. Of course it's correct to say "has its symmetry broken", but we need to remember this can be quite intimidating "jargon" to many users)
Hope I got the technical details roughly right, if not please excuse and correct. FT2 ( Talk | email) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I read the discussion above very quickly because I am currently busy with my own work, but in general I sympathize with TR's point of view: we should not make incorrect statements just because they sound simpler to grasp in one non-expert editor's head. They will still sound abstruse to most other non-expert readers, and on top of that we will be left with a nonsensical article. Formulating statements that are at the same time correct and accessible to the lay readers is of course quite difficult even for the experts, but it becomes almost impossible without a solid understanding of the topic. I am sorry to say this, but somtimes I have the impression that FT2 - well-meaning as he/she may be - lacks that necessary understanding. For example, in the discussion above FT2 keeps repeating things such as 'It is believed that the electroweak interaction (...) divides into two very different forces (...) This is known as symmetry breaking". TR has tried several times to explain that symmetry breaking has nothing to do with the fact that the EW interaction divides in two forces. In fact, there are two fundamental forces to start with, i.e. those associated with the SU(2) and U(1) gauge groups, respectively. The effect of symmetry breaking is that a combination of those two forces, i.e. the weak force, becomes short-range (while the rest, i.e. the electromagnetic force, remains long-range because the breaking of the symmetry is only partial). However, this explanation appears to go over FT2's head, and he/she keeps repeating his/her own flawed interpretation until the very end (see "the fundamental EW force manifests as two very different forces (EM + W)"). It would really be a pity if, as a result, TR became discouraged and gave up improving the article... This said, I apologize for not participating more constructively in the discussion, but as I mentioned above I really don't have time now. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. this example may help dispel FT2's confusion: consider a hypothetical situation in which the ground state breaks U(1)_EM too. In this case, the "weak" and "electromagnetic" forces would not look so different (both would be short-range, mediated by massive bosons), but the EW symmetry would be more completely broken than in the Standard Model. It should then be clear that "symmetry breaking" does not correspond to the fact that the weak and EM forces look very different from each other. To suggest that this is the case (as the lead still does) is a disservice to the readers. We offer them a picture that seems easier to digest, but in fact is incorrect. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I propose the lead section should be shortened and should adhere to WP:ss , the article feedback generaly indicates that the lead is too long for most people and that they would like a summary as lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybirdd ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In the popular media, it is being reported as fact that the Higgs boson has been discovered and its existence confirmed. Consider this NPR story, with its caption saying "Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of the Higgs boson on July 4, the long-sought building block of the universe." Should such statements go unchallenged or unreported in this article? BecurSansnow ( talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Something like this, as a subsection to "non technical overview" maybe?
A number of misconceptions about the Higgs boson have entered popular myth. Examples include: [10]
Myth | Reality |
---|---|
The Higgs boson (or particle) has been discovered. | A previously unknown particle has been proven to exist. It is not confirmed in any way whether or not it is actually a Higgs boson, or some other kind of new particle (although many people believe the former). |
There is only a 1 in (some number) million chance the Higgs boson does not exist | The 1 in millions figure (which changes over time) relates to the discovery of a particle. It does not say how likely that particle is to be a Higgs boson at all. (Technically it represents the chance that random background processes made it look like this particle exists, when it does not.) |
The Higgs boson creates the Higgs field | This is the wrong way around - if the boson exists, then the Higgs field would be the reason the boson exists. |
The Higgs boson is responsible for all mass. | The Higgs field (and not the boson) would be responsible for the mass of a number of fundamental particles. Even so, that would still only be a small part of all the mass we see around us. |
The Higgs field is kind of space-filling medium, a bit like the aether. | The Higgs field - if it exists - would be a quantum field that exists throughout space and pervades space, but it is not a substance, and cannot in any sense "fill" space. (A naive and simple analogy is that of gravity or the earth's magnetic field, which pervade but do not "fill", and can be detected by their effect on other particles). |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The article contained a bogus explanation of why forces with massive gauge bosons have a short range. (I think I may have made the mistake first.) Unlike what was stated in the article this has nothing to do with the gauge bosons decaying. (It is fairly easy to construct a model with massive gauge bosons which are stable.) Instead it has to do with the fact that, massless boson can have any wavelength, while the wavelength of a massive boson is limited by its rest mass. For an detailed explanation see [2]. T R 10:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
We state at the moment that it is possible for symmetries not to be followed (or "obeyed"). I've never been too happy with that phrasing, though "not followed" is at least bearable. I'm a bit hazy on this but would it more accurately describe the situation, to say instead that other processes can cause symmetrical laws to produce asymmetrical outcomes? (this was the description in one paper on HM and seems to match most descriptions of what HM actually involves) If not, in what sense is it "not obeyed" rather than something else? And is it just one symmetry that HM breaks in SM, or 3? FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
(unindent) I have now edited the wording since I think this gives a better way to say it. The problem you raise about the technical term "broken symmetry" (ie a field may cause a broken symmetry) is its jargon. But the concept can be expressed nicely in terms of broken conditions per above - symmetries hold under certain conditions, and a field exists which 'breaks' those conditions. That's very ordinary English, not jargon. So I've used it as it's both simpler and (per above, I gather?) maybe also a bit more exact. FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In three places we refer to the "vacuum state" and eight places we refer to the "ground state". Are these synonyms, and should we make them consistent?
Also if they are synonyms, then are the articles vacuum state and ground state essentially the same or extremely similar topics?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To "Gauge invariance is an important property of modern particle theories such as the Standard Model, partly due to its success in other areas of fundamental physics such as electromagnetism and the strong interaction (quantum chromodynamics)." one may choose something like this instead:
Standard Model is important as much as the Table of Elements is important because it fixes the single types of particles into system. This helps us to build a firm set of scientific beliefs as these particles are classified. As they are classified, they enter a puzzle where they are supposed to add description to one another. This has been successful with building the Table of Elements and continues with the Standard Model as well, in keeping us stuck to what is actually in nature and how this deepest level of particles can/do represent nature.
As with Table of Elements, I've thought that one would use a reliable confirmation method of these particles, but to varying degrees this must now be otherwise. Contrary to the best-standing particles that are now more or less absolute, description associated with the Standard Model has gone from particle description to theory description mixed with particle description and this has lead to a more unreliable Standard Model.
However, choosing your own scientifically steady particles can help to reduce the blur and bring forward a more steady work in physics, overall, I think. Good luck to you!
62.16.242.218 (
talk)
14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
FT2's recent addition on the issue of vacuum stability misses a key point. In particular, the sentence "if ... the Standard Model is correct" should be replaced with "if ... the Standard Model provides a correct description of particle physics up to the Planck scale", which is a quite different concept. Indeed, the SM might well be "correct" as an effective theory at the energy scales accessible to present-day experiments, but it might be embedded in an extended theory at an intermediate energy scale well below the Planck scale (where it must anyway be extended to describe gravity). In that case, the arguments on vacuum stability based on the evolution of the SM Higgs quartic coupling up to the Planck scale would not apply.
Another issue is that a big chunk of the new section is taken by the summary of the findings of a single recent scholarly paper. This is definitely frowned upon in Wikipedia, we should rather find a secondary source or wait until such a source becomes available. Moreover, the choice of scholarly paper looks somewhat arbitrary: it might be argued that other recent papers on the subject, e.g. arXiv:1205.6497, were much more influential than arXiv:1207.0980. The latter mainly addressed a technical point on how the top mass used as input in the calculation should be defined. Finally, the sentence "The authors conclude that ..." comes a bit out of nowhere, it is not clear which authors it is referring to. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that it may be important to note within this section that the discovery has also changed the way physicists are looking at the universe, and it's eventual end.
http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-boson-particle-may-spell-doom-universe-152236961.html
I have found this article explaining what I'm talking about. I couldn't find a way to explain it in a way that makes sense. - Poodle of Doom ( talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This entire article needs to be completely re-written by someone who is a writer first and may or may not be physicist. The current writing style is lacks clarity of thought despite all the information being present. As a simple example look at the Encyclopedia Britannica's first sentence on this same topic. The difference in clarity is striking. Articles need to be written not to satisfy ego by demonstrating knowledge that others do not have, but with an eye of conveying the information clearly. This article is atrocious and if submitted to me by a student I would hand it back and offer the opportunity to re-write it or take a failing grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.56.5 ( talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The Higgs Boson was found in late 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.102.214 ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The box on the tests to validate the SM-Higgs hypothesis contains the sentence "Spin-2, also considered, would be ruled out if decay to two tau leptons (τ τ) is proven", with a reference to a blog. Even without doing the math, this seems suspicious to me, for several simple reasons: 1) Kaluza-Klein gravitons are well-studied examples of (hypothetical) spin-2 particles, and they do decay into two leptons - see e.g. papers for the corresponding searches by ATLAS and CMS; 2) there is now a strong indication that the 125-GeV particle does decay into taus (see e.g. today's talk in Moriond) and nobody seems to be drawing implications on its spin; 3) in the comment section of the cited blog, none less than Frank Close (Oxford) convincingly criticizes the author's argument as incorrect. I guess that the moral of the story is that blog posts shouldn't be used as sources, I am going to remove the statement until somebody provides a more solid reference. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
add info from this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23241-shy-higgs-boson-continues-to-vex-particle-hunters.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.165.98 ( talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
also
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23245-rumour-points-to-completely-boring-higgs-boson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.165.98 ( talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion: One could say that the constant Higgs field of the vacuum changes the mass of particles just like an external position-dependent electric field changes the momentum of an electron. I think it makes the explanation less vague.¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarafa66 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
A user left this as feedback:
This strikes me as pertinent feedback, does he have a fair point and can we do better? FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
...sorry, a little excited there, but look at this! http://www.space.com/20226-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html Draconiator ( talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
CERN confirmed the Higgs boson this morning (3/14/2013) on KTVU/FOX News, COMCAST Channel 2, Oakland, CA, USA! Please update Higgs boson article accordingly.
JPD 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPD.Enterprises ( talk • contribs)
Agreed. At this point, we need a more definitive statement beginning this article that doesn't include "predicted." The Higgs boson now, according to consensus and review, actually exists. It is not "predicted" to exist at this point--and it's no more appropriate to equivocate on the nature of its existence then it is to do so on the existence of the electron or the quark. We may not know the complete nature of this Higgs, but we do know, according to what we're being told, that the Higgs--dramatic pause--is real. 2602:306:32C5:98C0:21E:C2FF:FEAB:F7AD ( talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Just skimming through this page but it appears that the first few lines cover recent developments but don't go into a concise explanation of what the Higgs Boson actually is. What do you think about having a first section that plays the role of introduction to the concept ? -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This section seems to be rationalizing the incredible investment that was made to discover the Higgs boson. It would be nice if there was a little more than just saying, "well we didn't think radio waves would be useful when we first discovered them, but they are now!". According to Proton decay, the Higgs boson should catalyze proton decay. Can this ever be useful in generating energy or is the lifetime too short? ScienceApe ( talk) 00:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase
has syntax that remains ambiguous until one reaches the singular "field", and thereby invites a pause to puzzle over whether
I thus presume that our colleague either
(And IMO the temporary ambiguity is exacerbated by the hyphen-ish-looking unspaced em-dash separating the four-word noun phrase, that immediately follows "is", from the 22-word appositive phrase that ends the sentence.) And thus presume as well that they will agree, on reflection, with my addition of the useful (if arguably not mandatory) hyphen in
and with my replacement of the em-dash with first two words of a phrase beginning
Or, BTW, perhaps someone will suggest a more precise word than my ideas, "constitutes", "embodies", or just "is".
(Well, in the offing, i encountered other complications, and, hopefully, resolved differently the same wording problems; i shall let my last wording speak for itself as a more workable solution to the issues i raised above.)
--
Jerzy•
t
01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)